Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Paul was a great advocate of salvation by grace and almost all of his writing is saturated with expressions of gratitude for and confidence in God’s grace. Yet Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to write a warning to all of us to remember that grace does not give license to sinfulness. He said, “that as sin reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto enternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord” and then he added, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” (Rom. 5:21-6:2).

If we have come into Christ through an obedient faith we are freed from past sins and given a precious relationship to God, in Christ, but we are then obligated to continue in righteousness. And we must not assume that because we are in Christ, God will “look the other way” when we sin. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that God will overlook any transgression or that He will decline to charge a person with guilt just because that person is a child of God.

Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life for three purposes: (1) To “do the will” of the Father (Jn. 4:34); (2) To set a perfect example for us to follow (1 Cor. 11:1); (3) To provide the only adequate sacrifice for the sins of others (Heb. 4:15; 7:26). But the perfect life of Jesus (which he lived on earth) is not imputed to us – that is, that is not attributed to us or counted for our account. Two verses of scripture need consideration here:

1. In Romans 4:8, Paul wrote, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Paul was not saying that God would overlook some sins in certain people, but he was teaching that some people’s sins are forgiven and, therefore, will not be held against them (see Rom. 4:7). And, in context, these verses were all teaching that righteousness today is not in keeping the old law but in and through faith in Christ, and that this righteousness is possible for both Jew and Gentile. Either (Jew or Gentile) if he sins is counted a sinner and if he is forgiven he is counted righteous.

2. In Romans 5:10, Paul wrote, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Paul is not saying that the sinless life of Jesus will save the Christian today, but he is saying that the Christian is saved today because Jesus is alive – He is now at God’s throne, interceding for us. Because we have a living Savior, we can have security as we “walk in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7) and as we “walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1).

God’s grace is an expression of His love for sinful man, but God’s very nature is incompatible with sin itself. Therefore, God cannot be reconciled to a sinner, but a sinner can be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus which was and is a sufficient price, paid in full, to enable God to justify the ungodly when they turn from ungodliness in faith.

Saved By Grace

Every Bible believer must acknowledge that we are saved, if saved at all, by God’s grace. However, there is much confusion as to the process by which we become beneficiaries of that saving race. Actually God’s grace comes to us in a three-fold manner. Perhaps we could simplify by saying that salvation for the alien sinner is accomplished only as a result of three separate, yet related circumstances, as follows:

1. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). Indeed, God has “set forth” Jesus Christ to be “a propitiation through faith in his blood . . . . for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Rom. 6:25). That is salvation (provided) by grace.

2. “Or despiseth thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Ram. 2:4). A true believer will be moved by the love of God, his supreme sacrifice and the love of Christ, and will respond with sincere submission in repentance and baptism (“They that gladly received the Word were baptized . . . ” — Acts 2:41). This is salvation (motivated) by grace.

3. But when the sinner had obeyed the gospel, he had earned nothing at all. God is not obligated to him even yet. However, under this circumstance and at this point God does pardon the sinner’s guilt. “. . . ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17, 18). This is salvation (received) by grace.

Conditional Salvation

Thus we see that everything which man cannot accomplish by merit, and that is necessary to our salvation, God has fully supplied by His generous grace. And He has made it sufficient for “whosoever Will” (Rev. 22:17). He is “no respector of persons” (Rom. 2:11).

Yet this abundance of grace does not save all because: (1) Some never know of this grace. “How shall they call on him of whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” (Ram. 10:14). (2) Some who hear will not believe and (3) some who believe will not obey.

Peter said, “Save yourselves . . . .” (Acts 2:40). Jesus said, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of the Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 7:21). Again Jesus said, “He that believeth and.is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

As far as God’s part in our salvation is concerned, it is altogether, totally, of grace! But as far as man’s part is concerned, salvation is altogether, totally conditional. Salvation for the sinner is obtained by grace and by an obedient faith, and that is not at all contradictory! And the next essay in this series will be regarding “Continuous (Constant) Grace.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 250-251
April 10, 1980

By Earl Robertson

Some who have accepted the idea that one saved in Christ can never be lost have used this passage (Heb. 7:25) to support such a contention. The verse says, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them:” The fact that Christ continueth ever as a priest, He is able to cave completely and make intercession. The running contrast` in the Hebrew letter of the inability of the sacrificed animals to save with the ability of Christ to save completely is the climaxes at this point. Christ is truly able to save all the same way – those who come to God by Him. One denominational preacher commenting on this verse wrote, “In short, Christ crucified paid for our salvation; Christ risen will surely collect what He paid for.”

Jesus Christ did “taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9), but is this fact cause to make us conclude that all will be saved? A sinner has the power of choice to reject the blood of Christ, and Christians are warned against counting “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing” (Heb. 10:29). The fact that Jesus died to save all does not teach universal salvation. The Bible plainly says “many” will be lost (Matt. 7:13, 14). Well, if Christ died for all, but many of the all will be lost; universalism is not true. So, what does the preacher mean “Christ risen will surely collect what He paid for”? It is an abortive attempt to make the word of God teach that once one is saved he can never be lost.

Though Christ died to save all, He imposes that His gospel be preached unto all (Mk. 16:15., 16) because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). This gospel he sealed through His death and by it we are sanctified (Heb. 10:10). This gospel is God’s power to save the ones who believe it (Rom. 1:16, 17). Those who believe and obey this gospel (Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:7-9) are saved and the Lord adds them to His church (Acts 2:38-47). Jesus called this the new birth and entrance into the kingdom, saying, “Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). But Jesus said some in the kingdom would be gathered out of the kingdom and cast into fire (Matt. 13:41, 42). Only the born again are in the kingdom, but some will be gathered out and burned!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, p. 250
April 10, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Though it has not been called to our attention, we ourselves have just noticed an inadvertent misquotation from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon which occurred during the recent Holcomb-Warnock) debate (see review in 6 & 13 March 1980 Truth Magazine). While pressing for the artificial covering on 4 December 1979, Holcomb presented a chart on 1 Corinthians 11:14 attempting to –show that “nature” (phusis) always means a “natural ‘instinct” which is “in us when we’re born.” Warnock protested that such an argument overlooks the diversity of applications for the broad term “nature” and leads to Calvinist views of such passages as Ephesians 2:3. The scholars testify to the breadth of meaning by listing several definitions and by expressing their judgment as to which passages fall under which of several definitions.

To show that Holcomb’s use of the scholars ignored this diversity, Warnock referred to Thayer’s list of four definitions. Explaining that “the word phusis doesn’t always mean the same thing,” Warnock quoted Thayer as saying, “what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law . . . the native sense of propriety” (taken from tape; see also 6 March Truth, p. 11). The book was handed to him to read with those words hurriedly underlined in ink to help him find his place quickly, which may explain how he omitted the first words of the quotation. Adding the words which had not been underlined, the quotation reads:

nature, i.e., natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opp. to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law . . . the native sense of propriety (Thayer, p. 660).

We are sorry for the error and glad to get this correction before the public on our own initiative.

Please observe that (1) this correction does not materially affect our argument. Recognized scholars including Thayer show that “nature” is a broad term with several applications, and the scholars must exercise judgment as to its exact application in any given passage. For instance, Edward Robinson’s Greek English Lexicon uses the same words as Thayer – “native sense of propriety” – as follows: “a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety, e.g., in respect to national customs in which one is born and brought up; 1 Cor. 11:14” (p. 771). (2) We all need to exercise mutual acceptance and forbearance with mutual respect while we continue to study such questions from time to time. The caution flag must be waved before brethren who are so dogmatically sure about these matters of personal conscience that they call for discipline and division. (3) Publication of this correction on our own initiative proves that debates can be conducted while keeping the interests of truth and accuracy preeminent. Just as advanced copies of the original review were sent to Holcomb, so is a copy of this correction. Debaters need not aim to “score” on each other “by hook or crook” and we do not intend to ever be guilty of such skulduggery. Let us all keep open minds and open Bibles with respect for debate as a tool of open, honorable discussion!

(Garry Halcomb says the no-class Fox Glove church in Nashville, Tennessee, where he was preaching during the debate, is not also one-cup. The report of Gary’s having taken the no-class position was correct.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, p. 249
April 10, 1980

 

By Daniel H. King

Some of the most dedicated Christians that I have known have been members of our Armed Forces. Being part of the military community they are trained to follow orders, remain at combat readiness at all times, make whatever sacrifices needful (including separation from home and family, even loss of life and limb), and place duty and honor, courage and country before all other worldly things. My work with congregations made up of military personnel has shown them to be (generally speaking, of course) just as sacrificial and dutiful in the cause of Christ, and often even more so, than in their service to their homeland. This observation is made not to extol the virtues of militarism or unduly compliment one segment of the brotherhood but for the sole purpose of taking note of the underlying cause of Paul’s selection of one of his great metaphors: that of the Christian as soldier.

“Fight the good fight of faith . . .” (1 Tim. 6:12) is a charge issued to those who are engaged in conflict, spiritual in nature, but conflict nevertheless, no less deadly than that fought in the carnal sphere. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God . . .” (Eph. 6:12-13): and, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Cor. 10:3, 4).

Those who take upon themselves the work of soldiering recognize hardship as a component of the soldier’s life. Total dedication is an absolute essential also: “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him as a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3-4).

But there are soldiers and there are soldiers. As Thomas Paine forcefully pointed out in the springtime of our own land of liberty: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country” (The Crisis, 1776). A crisis of one type or another is usually the means by which we may distinguish the true patriot and soldier from the “summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” as well as the mercenary warrior. Our own recent crisis in Viet Nam revealed the half-hearted commitment to liberty (stimulated by socialistic and liberalistic trends of thought and philosophy) which characterized a large segment of the youth of the sixties.

This is a dramatic demonstration of the point with which we currently concern ourselves: crises bring out the best or the worst in us. Oh, it is there all the time, either lurking in the deepest recesses of our minds or cradled in our heart of hearts. Timidity or heroism, disreputation or honor, self-love or sacrifice, cowardice or conscience – and the crisis of a moment, the “zero hour” of conflict and battle, or even the threat of it will betimes act as the necessary stimulus which betokens who we really are and where we really stand, or even whether we stand at all.

In the church, the crisis of issues quite often lets us in on who the real troopers are. It also identifies the summer soldiers. When the missionary society and instrumental music questions threw the church into the awesome and traumatic ordeal of division, those who were willing to fight the progress of digression were few and far between. But they faced more than mere loneliness for the struggle was carried on at great cost to themselves and their families and to all who were sympathetic to the cause. No one would have loved peace more than them, but if they had quietly sat by and watched the church go back into denominationalism we would have little honored their memory. And the God who told them to “buy the truth and sell it not” would have had little pleasure in such compromising ways either.

A comparable situation has arisen in the more recent problems over institutionalism, centralization, and liberalism. In many cases, men have held fast to biblical precedent and the New Testament pattern for the church and its work at great personal cost and sacrifice, while others who today hold seats of authority and prestige in those very institutions and agencies often flip-flopped in order to “swim with the current” on these issues: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Guy N. Woods, Bill Humble, Earl West, Harold Hazelip, to mention but a few. The quotations of Guy N. Woods still come back to haunt him from his Annual Lesson Commentary and other sources. Moreover, his recent silence on points of conflict with Ira North, editor of the Gospel Advocate point out this willingness to hush up in order not to rock the boat. It would be very difficult for us to believe that he does not oppose many things that are currently happening across the brotherhood, knowing his past positions. Earl West’s tract on Church Cooperation remains today as sound as it was when he preached the sermon that was its basis – even though the same could not be said of brother West. Bill Humble’s thesis written at the University of Iowa on the problem of cooperatives in the early restoration movement is a sufficient rejoinder to the position he now occupies on the cooperation issue. On and on we could go. Preachers who worked in those days tell of the numerous men who talked a good fight and whispered a good stand but then felt the breeze to see which way the wind was blowing. Upon finding out that it was not blowing their way they adjusted their convictions and their preaching to fit the flow of brotherhood opinion.

What has all of this to do with the present and the future? Just this: every new generation seems to face a new set of issues or problems. Some depart from the faith and some faithfully enter the struggle armed with the Sword of the Spirit, ready to suffer whatever may be their lot. They know that the scars of war will be deep and painful. They know that the contest itself will be dreadful and nightmarish. They shudder and march on in resignation. Yesterday’s friends will be today’s foes. Comrade-at-arms will lose their courage and flee the lines of battle leaving them to fight alone. Worse yet, traitors will try to cover their flight from truth by switching sides. When the engagement is over the soldier, wounded and bleeding, will stumble home only to meet barbs of criticism from his supposed friends and fellow-countrymen. They did no fighting. They never even went near the battle zone. But they know best how the war should have been conducted. Armchair generals they are; and still no stroke from the declared enemy could smart like theirs do. Later generations may applaud and call one a hero. For now he will be labeled a brute and a barbarian.

Yet such is a soldier’s life, whether he fights in the forces that protect the native land or in the legions of the Lord. He does not fight to please the crowds or satisfy the public or on account of his thirst for blood or even as a “soldier of fortune” but because right is on his side and he is on the right side. The great general Douglas MacArthur once said, “No one loves peace more than a soldier.” I suspect he is right, for none knows the real horror of war save the man with experience on the front. However, peace is too expensive when right and justice and truth are the price.

For the soldier of the cross a whole host of crises could be listed; the crisis of preaching support, of inflation, of hard times, of lack of appreciation; of failure, of closed doors, of indifference, of laziness and lethargy in the church, of too little help, of too few hours in the day, of persecution, of lack of love, of worldliness, and many, many more. Whatever the crisis may be, though it really boils down to this: what kind of a soldier are you? What kind am I? Paine’s immortal words could well be rephrased to fit the case: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his Master.” Paul wrote, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life . . . ” If we fail or flee the contest it will not be the fault of the cause for which we fight or the weapons with which we fight or even the enemy which we fight. The fighter, the soldier will be to blame. The annals of military history are rife with examples of courage, sacrifice and heroism in the waging of carnal combat. Can we afford to do less? Can the Lord’s people afford to offer less than men who usually only squabble over land boundaries?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 247-248
April 10, 1980